Jon Callas wrote:
I have some general opinions about this issue.
(1) I don't think the spec should change.
Now, then, I am not opposed to having a clarification in the spec.
(2) I don't see how in the general case clearsigning can be a
reversible operation.
... Clearsigning is human-readable and that's the
whole point.
(3) I am firmly against any tweak to the spec, including commentary,
that requires any implementation that's got versions past 1.0.1 to have
to make a code or behavior change. It's far, far too late for that.
OK.
Suggested change from this (1st para, chapter 7):
It is desirable to sign a textual octet stream without ASCII
armoring the stream itself, so the signed text is still readable
without special software. In order to bind a signature to such a
cleartext, this framework is used. (Note that RFC 3156 defines
another way to sign cleartext messages for environments that support
MIME.)
To this (changes are in the parenthesized Note):
It is desirable to sign a textual octet stream without ASCII
armoring the stream itself, so the signed text is still readable
without special software. In order to bind a signature to such a
cleartext, this framework is used. (Note that this binding is not
intended to be reversible. RFC 3156 defines another way to sign
cleartext messages for environments that support MIME.)
Changes are in the parenthesized Note and amount to the insertion
of the following CAPS:
Note that THIS BINDING IS NOT INTENDED TO BE REVERSIBLE. RFC ...
iang